Steven Williams v. Sampson et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this 1 Action Proceed against Defendant D. Zanchi for Retaliation and Defendants K. Sampson, W.J. Sullivan, D. Crounse. N. Grannis, M. Carrasco, L.L. Schulties, F. Gonzales, Slanker, Peterson, and 7 Un known Officers are Dismissed from this Action for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be Granted signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/14/2009. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 1/7/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN WILLIAMS, 10 11 v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:09-cv-00551-AWI-DLB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Docs. 1, 10, 11) Defendants. / OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 K. SAMPSON, et al., 13 14 15 16 I. 17 Findings and Recommendations Following Screening Plaintiff Steven Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by 19 filing his complaint on March 24, 2009. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim against Defendant 21 Zanchi for retaliation, but failed to state any other claims against any other defendants. (Doc. 22 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness 23 to proceed only against Defendant Zanchi. On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed his notice of 24 intent to proceed only against Defendant Zanchi. (Doc. 11.) The Court thus issues the following 25 Findings and Recommendations. 26 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). The 28 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 1 1 legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 2 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 3 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 4 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 5 appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 6 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 8 pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 9 required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 11 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must 12 set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim that is plausible on its 13 face.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 14 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 15 II. 16 Summary of Complaint Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in 17 Tehachapi, California, where the events giving rise to this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff 18 names as defendants: appeals coordinator K. Sampson, Warden W. J. Sullivan, Lieutenant D. 19 Crounse, Chief Appeals Director N. Grannis, Captain D. Zanchi, assistant warden M. Carrasco, 20 C.D.N. Warden L. L. Schulties, acting warden F. Gonzales, sergeant Slanker, and seven 21 unknown officers. Plaintiff also names lieutenant Peterson as a defendant in the body of his 22 complaint. 23 Plaintiff alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the 24 Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sampson denied process on Plaintiff's 25 inmate appeals, including his food allergy appeals and sexual harassment allegations. Plaintiff 26 alleges defendant W. J. Sullivan has responsibility over the safety of his prisoners. Plaintiff 27 alleges that defendant N. Grannis has a pattern of disregard in answering Plaintiff's appeals. 28 Plaintiff alleges retaliation at CCI by unknown officers. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Eighth 2 1 Amendment and Equal Protection against defendant Gonzales for failure to establish a religious 2 program for Muslim prisoners. Plaintiff alleges defendant Gonzales falsified documents, which 3 amounted to conjecture. Plaintiff alleges that defendant M. Carrasco lied to Plaintiff during an 4 institutional classification committee hearing. Plaintiff alleges that M. Carrasco told Plaintiff he 5 would be afforded his religious rights, but Plaintiff has not been afforded his religious freedom. 6 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Schulties as chief deputy warden did deny and continued to deny 7 Plaintiff's rights. 8 Plaintiff alleges that defendant D. Zanchi moved Plaintiff to a management cell. Plaintiff 9 remained there for 44 days, and complained of a dirty mattress, toilet, sink, and walls, freezing 10 air in the cell, and cold food. Plaintiff alleges that defendant D. Zanchi did this in retaliation for 11 Plaintiff filing an inmate appeal. Defendant Peterson denied Plaintiff his due process by denying 12 him access to a library and case law. 13 14 III. 15 16 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Discussion 1. Linkage Requirement To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted 17 under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution 18 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff 19 names defendants Crounse and Slanker in his complaint, but fails to link Crounse or Slanker to 20 any act or omission that would indicate a deprivation of federal or constitutional rights. Plaintiff 21 thus fails to state a claim against them. 22 23 2. Inmate Grievances Plaintiff complains of defendants Sampson and Grannis for their actions in the inmate 24 appeals process. The existence of an administrative remedy process does not create any 25 substantive rights and cannot support a claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. 26 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 27 Cir. 1988); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff has no due process 28 claim under 1983 for defendants' actions solely in the inmate appeals process. 3 1 2 3. Equal Protection Plaintiff alleges violations of Equal Protection by defendants Gonzales, Carrasco, and 3 Schulties. "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State 4 shall `deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is 5 essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of 6 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 7 202, 216 (1982)). 8 Prison officials must treat all religions equally, and not favor one religion over another. 9 Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 918 (1990). A prisoner must have a "reasonable 10 opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who 11 adhere to conventional religious precepts." Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008) 12 (quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972)). Prisons need not provide identical 13 accommodations to different faiths, see Cruz, 405 U.S. at 322 n.2, but must make "good faith 14 accommodation of the [prisoners'] rights in light of practical considerations." Allen v. Toombs, 15 827 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.3d 1, 4 (3rd Cir. 1970)). 16 To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff in a section 1983 claim must show that 17 officials intentionally acted in a discriminatory manner. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 18 (9th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds as stated in Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85. 19 Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any facts that indicate an Equal Protection violation 20 by defendants Gonzales, Carrasco, and Schulties. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged how 21 defendants Gonzales, Carrasco, and Schulties discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of 22 religion. Vague allegations of failure to provide religious rights are not sufficient. 23 24 4. Free Exercise of Religion "The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs does not terminate at the prison door. 25 The free exercise right, however, is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be 26 curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security." 27 McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing O'Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 28 (1987)); see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). Only beliefs which are both sincerely 4 1 held and rooted in religious beliefs trigger the Free Exercise Clause. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 2 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994)); Callahan 3 v. Woods, 658 F. 2d 679, 683 (9th Cir. 1981)). 4 Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any facts that indicate a First Amendment violation 5 by defendants Gonzales, Carrasco, and Schulties. Plaintiff's vague allegations of failure to 6 provide religious rights are insufficient to state a claim. 7 8 5. Access to the Courts Plaintiff alleges that defendant Peterson failed to provide Plaintiff due process by denying 9 him a library and case law. The Court interprets this as an access to the courts claim.1 Inmates 10 have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 11 346 (1996). The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights 12 actions. Id. at 354. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration or 13 hindrance of "a litigating opportunity yet to be gained" (forward-looking access claim) or from 14 the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. 15 Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002). 16 A necessary element for this claim requires that plaintiff show he suffered an "actual 17 injury" by being shut out of court. Harbury 536 U.S. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. The second 18 element requires that plaintiff show defendant proximately caused the alleged violation of 19 plaintiff's rights, the touchstone of which is foreseeability. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 20 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)); see Tahoe-Sierra Pres. 21 Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764, 784-85 (9th Cir. 2000). 22 Finally, the third element requires that plaintiff show he has no other remedy than the relief 23 available via this suit for denial of access to the courts. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415. 24 25 26 27 28 "To establish a violation of substantive due process . . . , a plaintiff is ordinarily required to prove that a c h a lle n g e d government action was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public h e a lth , safety, morals, or general welfare. W h e r e a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of c o n s titu tio n a l protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized n o tio n of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing a plaintiff's claims." Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 8 6 8 , 874 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations, internal quotations, and brackets omitted), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1845 (1997); C o u n ty of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998). Plaintiff's allegations are better analyzed as an access to th e courts claim, and thus substantive due process will not be applied. 1 5 1 Plaintiff fails to allege any actual injury by being shut out of court. Plaintiff thus fails to 2 state a cognizable access to the courts claim against defendant Peterson. 3 4 6. Supervisory Liability Plaintiff alleges liability against defendant W. J. Sullivan as warden. Plaintiff appears to 5 be alleging supervisory liability. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under 1983 for 6 the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a 7 named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed 8 constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 9 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 10 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, 11 Plaintiff must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: 12 personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations 13 and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the 14 policy `itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights' and is `the moving force of the 15 constitutional violation.'" Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations 16 omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 17 Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that indicate defendant Sullivan personally participated in 18 the alleged deprivation of a constitutional right, knew of the violations and failed to act to 19 prevent them, or implemented a policy so deficient that the policy repudiates constitutional rights 20 and is the moving force of the violation. 21 22 7. Retaliation Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner's First Amendment rights to speech or to 23 petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 24 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 25 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 26 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 27 adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that 28 such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did 6 1 not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 5672 68 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Under federal pleading standards, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable retaliation claim against 4 defendant D. Zanchi. Plaintiff makes vague claims of retaliation by 7 unknown officers, which 5 are not cognizable. 6 7 8. Eighth Amendment To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 8 conditions must involve "the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . ." Rhodes v. 9 Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, 10 prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and 11 personal safety. Id.; see Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated 12 in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 13 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions 14 of confinement, prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with "deliberate 15 indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 16 1998). 17 The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, 18 the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, "sufficiently serious . . . ." Farmer v. 19 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)); Johnson 20 v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 734 (9th Cir. 2000). A deprivation is sufficiently serious when the 21 prison official's act or omission results "in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's 22 necessities." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Second, the plaintiff 23 must make a subjective showing that the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive 24 risk to an inmate's health or safety. Id. at 837; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 734. 25 Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to indicate a violation of the Eighth Amendment. 26 Plaintiff fails to allege that any defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate 27 health or safety. 28 /// 7 1 IV. 2 Conclusion and Recommendation Plaintiff has stated a cognizable retaliation claim against defendant D. Zanchi. Plaintiff 3 has not stated a cognizable claim against defendants K. Sampson, W. J. Sullivan, D. Crounse, N. 4 Grannis, M. Carrasco, L. L. Schulties, F. Gonzales, Slanker, Peterson, and 7 unknown officers. 5 Plaintiff fails to state any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to file 6 an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein, but declined. Accordingly, the 7 Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. 2. This action proceed against Defendant D. Zanchi for retaliation; and Defendants K. Sampson, W. J. Sullivan, D. Crounse, N. Grannis, M. Carrasco, L. L. Schulties, F. Gonzales, Slanker, Peterson, and 7 unknown officers are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l). Within 16 twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 20 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 14, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?